February 2007 - Test - lists.nanog.org

wifi for 600, alex
by Carl Karsten 19 Feb '07

19 Feb '07

Hi list, I just read over: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/ppt/joel.pdf because I am on the PyCon ( http://us.pycon.org ) team and last year the hotel supplied wifi for the 600 attendees was a disaster (they probably were not expecting every single one to have and use a laptop the whole time). Joel's pdf was for a conference in 2002 or 3, so I am hoping much has changed. But from what I have found, I think my hopes may be just a dream. Does anyone have any advice or URLs of more recent case studdies in supplying wifi for 600 laptop wielding geeks? Thanks, Carl K ps, Google is one of our sponsors, and I see that they want to be the next inertube or something - maybe we can get them to do it :)

12 18

Datapipe.net
by Eric Ortega 19 Feb '07

19 Feb '07

Can someone from Datapipe.net contact me off list? Thanks, Eric Ortega Midcontinent Communications Network Engineer 605.357.5720 eric.ortega(a)midco.net -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007 4:35 PM

1 0

RE: botnets: web servers, end-systems and Vint Cerf
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 19 Feb '07

19 Feb '07

> > It is regularly done with servers connected to the Internet. > > There is no *COMPUTING* problem or technical problem. > > I beg to differ. Yes, it is possible for tech-savvy users to secure > their machines pretty effectively. But the level of technical > knowledge required to do so is completely out of line with, say, the > level of automotive knowledge required to safely operate an > automobile. You need, at minimum, weeks of training in order to safely operate an automobile. But to safely operate on the Internet, you simply open the box, plug the DSL cable into the DSL port of the NAT/firewall/switch/gateway box, plug the brand new unsecured computer into the Ethernet port, and you can now safely operate on the Internet. The technical problem has been solved for a long, long time. The same factors which drive down the cost of computers, have also driven down the cost of NAT/firewall devices to the point where they could actually be integrated right into the PC's hardware. > We know how -people with specialized knowledge- can secure them, not > ordinary people - and I submit that we in fact do not know how to > clean and validate compromised systems running modern > general-purpose > operating systems, that the only sane option is > re-installation of OS > and applications from scratch. This is an entirely different issue. It's like trying to cure AIDS and syphilis. Maybe prevention is an easier problem to tackle. Condoms are also fairly simple technology that works. --Michael Dillon

2 1

R Scott Perry (HopOne/Superb.net collateral damage)
by Simon Waters 19 Feb '07

19 Feb '07

Anyone have an email for him, could they drop it to me off list. He seems to have stuff hosted with that the den of spammers at HopOne Internet. On the upside it seems there is at least one genuine service amongst the address space we blocked at HopOne. But that is 1 address out of 32 class Cs we blocked. They seem to have a virulent PayPal Phish sender at 66.36.228.37 as well this week. Ho Hum Simon

1 0

remove
by Tushar Patel 18 Feb '07

18 Feb '07

2 1

Measurement data on transit traffic in IP routers?
by Chris Develder 18 Feb '07

18 Feb '07

Hi All, In preparation of a course, I'm looking for reference material (paper, report, talk...) giving real world data on the amount of transit traffic (ie. not locally dropped or added, but passing through to other (backbone) routers) in a "typical" edge router of a core network, esp. ratio of local vs passthrough traffic (is it 30%, 40%...?) -- I don't need absolute figures, just realistic estimates of that ratio. Any help in locating such references would be highly appreciated. Kind regards, Chris -- Chris Develder, PhD Ghent University - IBBT, Dept. of Information Technology (INTEC), IBCN Gaston Crommenlaan 8, bus 201 BE-9050 Gent, Belgium T: +32 9 3314961 (secr: +32 9 3314900) F: +32 9 3314899 E: chris.develder(a)intec.ugent.be

3 2

RE: botnets: web servers, end-systems and Vint Cerf
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 18 Feb '07

18 Feb '07

> >Therefore, I assert that securing systems adequately for use on the > >Internet is indeed a SOLVED PROBLEM in computing. > > A HUNDRED MILLION machines beg to differ. You misunderstand. The problem of securing machines *IS* solved. It is possible. It is regularly done with servers connected to the Internet. There is no *COMPUTING* problem or technical problem. The problem of the 100 million machines is a social or business problem. We know how they can be secured, but the solution is not being implemented. --Michael Dillon

8 7

Do routers prioritize control traffic?
by Christos Papadopoulos 18 Feb '07

18 Feb '07

I know routers today have the ability to prioritize traffic, but last I heard, these controls are not often used for user traffic (let's not discuss net neutrality here). Are they used for control (e.g., routing) traffic? Please say a bit more than "It depends!" :-) Our students are interested in real-world practices. Answers on or off list are welcome. Christos Papadopoulos Colorado State University.

3 2

Re: botnets: web servers, end-systems and Vint Cerf
by J. Oquendo 17 Feb '07

17 Feb '07

michael.dillon(a)bt.com wrote: > > You misunderstand. The problem of securing machines *IS* solved. It is > possible. It is regularly done with servers connected to the Internet. > There is no *COMPUTING* problem or technical problem. > The problem of the 100 million machines is a social or business problem. > We know how they can be secured, but the solution is not being > implemented. > > --Michael Dillon > After all these years, I'm still surprised a consortium of ISP's haven't figured out a way to do something a-la Packet Fence for their clients where - whenever an infected machine is detected after logging in, that machine is thrown into say a VLAN with instructions on how to clean their machines before they're allowed to go further and stay online. If you ask me, traffic providers (NSP's/NAP's) and ISP's don't mind this garbage coming out of their networks, if they did they'd actually ban together and do something about it. Its obvious those charging for traffic will say little. Minimized traffic means minimized revenue. All I see is "No we despise that kind of traffic" along with a shrug and nothing being done about it. I'm sure if some legislative body somewhere started levying fines against providers, the net would be a cleaner place. For comments on 100 million infected machines... Doubtable. Anyone can play fuzzy math games, heck I just strangely figured out that MS is costing me an arm and a leg! http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg04755.html -- ==================================================== J. Oquendo http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743 sil . infiltrated @ net http://www.infiltrated.net The happiness of society is the end of government. John Adams

7 15

RPSL question
by Andreas Voellmy 17 Feb '07

17 Feb '07

Hi, I'm trying to learn about BGP and just ran across RPSL. I've seen www.radb.net and know that lots of people are registering their policies here. Are organizations also using these RPSL policies to compile configuration files for their routers (via RtConfig)? Or do they just maintain their RPSL policies and router configurations separately? Thanks, Andreas

3 2